Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Cade Morrigan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:05:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Malcanis It's not really a whine you welsh get.
What's this? |
BiggestT
Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:06:00 -
[92]
Hehe, Ive been wanting to make a thread like this for quite a while.
Thankfully, Malc beat me to it and I can see why I didnt do it.
Unfortunately, most ppl on this forum simply read one or two sentances, or even just the thread title and post some semi-witty but quite pointless junk and even "gb2wow" or "stfu noob" type posts.
Your taking one for the team here, which I believe is true as almost all falcon pilots I know (who use htem on their mains and dont have other pvp alts) hate using them and wld like them to be funner.
Id personally love to see ecm booted, and shield/armour dampeners put in their place, the scorp + recons get a drone bay and a nice buffer tank to boot. But who am I kidding all the "ECM is fine" arguers dont want change .
Troll away. |
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:16:00 -
[93]
What If...
ECM had a random chance to jam PER TARGET rather than all targets in a lump. The possibilty to still have some targets to shoot/rep/counter EW would then remain, while still reducing the capability of the jammed ship significantly.
ECM, when jamming a ship, didn't break locks but instead simply prevented activation of any "On target" effect modules during the duration.
ECM numerically reduced the effectiveness of any "On target" effect modules by the jam strength of the ECM. A 30% ECM would reduce the damage, remote rep strength, and EW effect of the jammed ship by 30%. Stacking penalized for sure.
Ideas just for fun. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:20:00 -
[94]
Originally by: BiggestT Hehe, Ive been wanting to make a thread like this for quite a while.
Thankfully, Malc beat me to it and I can see why I didnt do it.
Unfortunately, most ppl on this forum simply read one or two sentances, or even just the thread title and post some semi-witty but quite pointless junk and even "gb2wow" or "stfu noob" type posts.
Your taking one for the team here, which I believe is true as almost all falcon pilots I know (who use htem on their mains and dont have other pvp alts) hate using them and wld like them to be funner.
Id personally love to see ecm booted, and shield/armour dampeners put in their place, the scorp + recons get a drone bay and a nice buffer tank to boot. But who am I kidding all the "ECM is fine" arguers dont want change .
Troll away.
Shield/armour damps would be barely better than target painters - worse in some respects. That might work as a funky secondary EW, but even then, meh. |
BiggestT
Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:27:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: BiggestT Hehe, Ive been wanting to make a thread like this for quite a while.
Thankfully, Malc beat me to it and I can see why I didnt do it.
Unfortunately, most ppl on this forum simply read one or two sentances, or even just the thread title and post some semi-witty but quite pointless junk and even "gb2wow" or "stfu noob" type posts.
Your taking one for the team here, which I believe is true as almost all falcon pilots I know (who use htem on their mains and dont have other pvp alts) hate using them and wld like them to be funner.
Id personally love to see ecm booted, and shield/armour dampeners put in their place, the scorp + recons get a drone bay and a nice buffer tank to boot. But who am I kidding all the "ECM is fine" arguers dont want change .
Troll away.
Shield/armour damps would be barely better than target painters - worse in some respects. That might work as a funky secondary EW, but even then, meh.
Aye, true.
Especially when neuting will bugger up resists anway once cap is gone. So what to replace it with... /scratches head EVE history
t2 precisions |
Isabelle Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:38:00 -
[96]
I think Beverly had some excellent points all the way through this discussion. On or off mechanics never work particularly well. It is the shades of grey that make a game interesting.
|
Karash Amerius
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:47:00 -
[97]
People are forgetting that ECM *was* 100% effective if your total points were over their radar strength. Back then you had to use multiple ECM modules to completely disable a BS, but smaller ships were generally no problem. People whined, and now we have the chance based system.
The problem isnt that its 100% effective or chance based, the problem is that you cannot do anything in this game without locking a ship in a pvp situation. Its pretty simple, and why I generally agree with the OP.
If you can't lock anyone in PVP, all you do is just sit there watching your tank (if you have one). No other EW is as effective in a PVP fight than ECM, and no matter how many tweaks you give it, it will continue to be numero uno unless the mechanics are changed in regards to breaking locks. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:52:00 -
[98]
Originally by: BiggestT Hehe, Ive been wanting to make a thread like this for quite a while.
Thankfully, Malc beat me to it and I can see why I didnt do it.
Unfortunately, most ppl on this forum simply read one or two sentances, or even just the thread title and post some semi-witty but quite pointless junk and even "gb2wow" or "stfu noob" type posts.
Your taking one for the team here, which I believe is true as almost all falcon pilots I know (who use htem on their mains and dont have other pvp alts) hate using them and wld like them to be funner.
Id personally love to see ecm booted, and shield/armour dampeners put in their place, the scorp + recons get a drone bay and a nice buffer tank to boot. But who am I kidding all the "ECM is fine" arguers dont want change .
Troll away.
you know this is nothing new ? go have a look at the ECM threadnought cca 2 years ago, prior the last ECM nerf that introduced SDAs and other changes ... there are many many more ideas from that time for refinement/replacement ...
I did not see anything new in this thread (I even suggested many of the ideas myself, just got shot down in Features and Ideas).
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:56:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Karash Amerius People are forgetting that ECM *was* 100% effective if your total points were over their radar strength. Back then you had to use multiple ECM modules to completely disable a BS, but smaller ships were generally no problem. People whined, and now we have the chance based system.
The problem isnt that its 100% effective or chance based, the problem is that you cannot do anything in this game without locking a ship in a pvp situation. Its pretty simple, and why I generally agree with the OP.
If you can't lock anyone in PVP, all you do is just sit there watching your tank (if you have one). No other EW is as effective in a PVP fight than ECM, and no matter how many tweaks you give it, it will continue to be numero uno unless the mechanics are changed in regards to breaking locks.
this could be somewhat mitigated with a simple gang mechanic change:
you don't need a lock for remote assist modules if targeting a gang mate. basicaly instant rep/boost ...
so ECM only shuts down the offensive modules or non-ganged targets. however rr gangs would be crazy and this would force more blobs (you can still neut and damp them) |
Karrade Krise
Galatic P0RN Starz
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:59:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Karrade Krise on 09/01/2009 17:06:33 You forgot your flamer3tardant suit...
ECM is part of the game, there are counters for it...taking it out now will royally **** off the people that have specc'd for ECM. What will you do? Take away those skills? Give them points to place elsewhere?
That's just gamebreaking right there...(Not litterally, just exaggerated)
If anything they should just tone down the strength a bit or...Go back to where it's not chance based anymore, and you have to have combined greater strength in jammers to jam a single ship.
for example. Ship A has 28 Sensor Strength. Falcon has to use at least 2 racial jammers in order to jam that particular ship.
More jammers per ship means less people jammed by single falcon/ecm ship. Of course with this I feel they would need to boost sensor strength on a few ships. |
|
Connner
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:03:00 -
[101]
Hm, if only there was some other module one could fit to somehow counter the effects of ecm?
As for it being not fun, well thats a matter of opinion. I agree its not fun to get jammed, but its loads of fun being the jammer. Immagining the stream of curses being hurled in my direction as gang mates lesiurly destroy your ship.
That being said, I would support an eccm buff but not an ecm nerf (or elimination in this case). |
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:05:00 -
[102]
Afaik CCP is working on ECCM. But it won't stop the whine. I'll buy some cheese. |
Isabelle Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:36:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Isabelle Sparks on 09/01/2009 17:38:15
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 09/01/2009 15:34:52
Originally by: Beverly Sparks
Having your Armor repairer, or you damage mods go offline in the middle of a fight causes you to have to adapt.
Nuets already have that effect on active tanks, and having dmg mods go offline is hardly the end of the world.
Originally by: Beverly Sparks Instead of binary situations, fit ECCM or don't. With ECM we don't care about the pilot skill, because you can't target anything anyway.
I never fit ECCM as my gangs use repositioning/maneuverability and versatile fittings plus a good amount of teamwork and a whole bunch more falcon's to beat ecm heavy gangs.
Plates and hardeners do not give invulnerability to damages so ppl use other things and ways to win fights why should eccm do so against ecm and why shouldn't ppl need to use tactics against it?.
FTFY
Stop being so obtuse. Armor repairer and damage mods are just examples. What if it shut down half your guns, or maybe your MWD and disrupter. Also, I would say that on a gank build damage mods may be fairly significant. Perhaps, you could load scripts, and actually target different types of weapon modules, or maybe you could load scripts that made it kn**** off either High slots, mid slots or low slots.
There are a million possibilities, that add more to the game then someone being able to do something, or not.
Fitting ECCM should protect you versus ECM, because you are using up a slot in your build to counter a single other module in the game. What would be the point of fitting it if it did not work?
Damage is hardly comparable to electronic warfare. ECCM is the counter for ECM, it should most definitely work, just as ECM should work in the absence of ECCM.
And lastly
|
Spartan dax
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:38:00 -
[104]
I posted a suggestion in "features and ideas" recently about a new ECM mechanic.
Well thought out and stunning mechanic
It solves everything, the middle east crisis, dependancy on oil and also answers the question of "WTF!?!"
Change ecm BUT ABOVE ALL BOOST THE SHIPS! They're frickin dreadfull and boring to fly.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:46:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks
There are a million possibilities, that add more to the game then someone being able to do something, or not.
It would add the ability to make ecm useless for ppl who are emo about getting jammed.
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks Fitting ECCM should protect you versus ECM, because you are using up a slot in your build to counter a single other module in the game. What would be the point of fitting it if it did not work?
Hardeners take up a slot and do not give the sort of immunity your talking about.
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks Damage is hardly comparable to electronic warfare. ECCM is the counter for ECM, it should most definitely work, just as ECM should work in the absence of ECCM.
It does work.
|
a'akanelle
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:58:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks I think Beverly had some excellent points all the way through this discussion. On or off mechanics never work particularly well. It is the shades of grey that make a game interesting.
Beverly certainly does make some good points but if you are going to compliment yourself at least make an alt with a completely different name. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 18:15:00 -
[107]
Originally by: a'akanelle
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks I think Beverly had some excellent points all the way through this discussion. On or off mechanics never work particularly well. It is the shades of grey that make a game interesting.
Beverly certainly does make some good points but if you are going to compliment yourself at least make an alt with a completely different name.
|
Isabelle Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 18:29:00 -
[108]
Originally by: a'akanelle
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks I think Beverly had some excellent points all the way through this discussion. On or off mechanics never work particularly well. It is the shades of grey that make a game interesting.
Beverly certainly does make some good points but if you are going to compliment yourself at least make an alt with a completely different name.
Now what fun would that be if you didn't know it was me.
|
Aerin Cloudfayr
the evil ones Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 18:37:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Aerin Cloudfayr on 09/01/2009 18:39:32 I wouldn't mind if it simply broke the lock like ECM Bursts do, but even then the sensor strength would have to be double or something in order to be predictably effective.
at least this way, with the cycle times being what, 20secs? it doesn't make the thing too OP...will it? it's then just a matter of consistently breaking locks, rather than RUINING someone's day...
And base it off the ratio between sensor strength and scan resolution, so that frigates etc with a high scan res, and low sensor strength will be more difficult to jam, and vice versa. |
Ahmadiyya
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 20:40:00 -
[110]
Originally by: hellsknights I dislike the Scorp, but its efective at what is does. Do we need an ECM BS i think we could do without.
If your using a Scorp for ecm support why not use a recon, i know the scorp will push out more DPS but still.
Maybe i just have Scorp hate.
But its so awesome for rr gangs :( |
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:10:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Spartan dax I posted a suggestion in "features and ideas" recently about a new ECM mechanic.
Well thought out and stunning mechanic
It solves everything, the middle east crisis, dependancy on oil and also answers the question of "WTF!?!"
Change ecm BUT ABOVE ALL BOOST THE SHIPS! They're frickin dreadfull and boring to fly.
your idea has several flaws ...
and basicaly it's the same system as was present before ECM became chance based in the sitaution where you want a permajam ... and you improved on it by adding a partial jam possibility ... that's all I can see there ... |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:30:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Murina
Removing ECM would push the game even more towards the gank/tank slug fest kinda deal that sucks gigantic donkey balls.
Keep it and we force ppl to be more mobile and versatile in their combat choices and strategies.
No it won't, we will just see all sorts of ewar used instead of one dominating and overpowered one.
|
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:32:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Malcanis ECM inherently sucks
Nice to see another pilot getting it - ECM is anti-combat and anti-fun. Yes we use/abuse them but we don't have any choice because all our serious opponents have them in numbers.
Given the changes to the game making mid slots more valuable the whole "fit ECCM" argument has become one of the sadest parts of the whole deal. Yeah we fit ECCM which means less tackle and less combat.
I don't think that ECM is just unfun - Falcons are also really obviously overpowered. If they weren't there wouldn't be a problem because we simply wouldn't use Falcons.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:37:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Murina on 09/01/2009 21:44:33
Originally by: Murina
Removing ECM would push the game even more towards the gank/tank slug fest kinda deal that sucks gigantic donkey balls.
Keep it and we force ppl to be more mobile and versatile in their combat choices and strategies.
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong No it won't,
It already does, well at least it does for those with the teamwork and individual skill to do so....
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong we will just see all sorts of ewar used instead of one dominating and overpowered one.
But you think removing ecm means ppl will fly other recons more?.
Gratz on the stupidest post and most pitiful reasoning ever.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:47:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Murina
But you think removing ecm means ppl will fly other recons more?.
Gratz on the stupidest post and most pitiful reasoning ever.
Wich means ecm is overpowered. Quite excellent logic tbh. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:51:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Murina on 09/01/2009 21:51:48
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
But you think removing ecm means ppl will fly other recons more?.
Gratz on the stupidest post and most pitiful reasoning ever.
Which means ecm is overpowered. Quite excellent logic tbh.
Logic how is that logic, ppl fly the other recons as solo ships or tacklers in certain gang scenarios cos that is where their str lies and ppl fly ecm ships in gangs cos that is where their str lies.
Try this logic, falcons are underpowered cos they cannot fly solo while the others can.....fact. See what i did there?.
You really have no clue do you?. |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:55:00 -
[117]
Nice to see the Falcon haters are in; Falcons and ECM can be countered with modules, ships and tactics.
The point still stands that once i've got my Falcon to 170km then it's a pretty dull life for me.
|
Myrfrost
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 22:03:00 -
[118]
I think it's kind of funny a guy from Recon wants to nerf ECM.
I'm all in favor of dumbing down the game so I need fewer skills and have fewer choices when fitting my ship. I really just want to need to get the biggest ship I can fly with the biggest guns I can get and learn how to push fire first.
I'd honestly hate to see the game dumbed down. |
Noisrevbus
Caldari Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 23:13:00 -
[119]
I'm not sure if i agree on any of the suggestions really (overall, i think most ideas are a bit too drastic), but i agree with the general consensus that ECM is A) very volatile to balance and B) pretty boring to use yourself (not face, i have no quarrel with other people using ECM, i have just grown bored of flying it myself). I'm pretty sure a made a similar thread to this one, outlining the same 'problems' and suggested a solution to it, a couple of weeks back.
On a second note, someone made a point about the Caldari HACs not having drone-bays either. That is why they 'suck' as well. The only reason people don't complain louder about the Caldari HACs is because they (just like ECM) can fill a nische. In EVE, having role through such a ship's nische being well adaptable to a given role in a gang becomes pretty important. In theory however, they are weaker ships. They gain their role thanks to their bonuses, but they don't have more bonuses than any other HAC. They don't have more slots (afaik), just less dronebay (which equate into slots).
Now i'm not saying Caldari HACs need changes and need them now. As stated, a nische can take you a good bit on the way if the nische itself works well in the game environment, and you can have fun with it. But i think it's very rash to point out a weakness in a certain shipclass and argue that another shipclass should be able to bare with similar issues - because having an equal ship 'slot' displacement is important. Caldari HACs make do without it, just as one BS can make do with being slightly worse than another as long as it function within it's role of being a BS.
The last comment there is also important when it comes to ECM, because ECM-ships can't. If you take away their ECM, or trivialize it, the ships will have no role. Putting a drone-bay on the Eagle, despite they fact that it has a role (albeit and extremely narrow one) would definately not make the ship overpowered in any sense of the word. Even if some people can enjoy it in it's nisched support-sniper role today, people would most likely have more fun with in other ways if it had some more flexibility and it can easily gain that without overpowering it.
Correct me if i am wrong about the HACs, perhaps they have gained something in exchange for their lack of dronebays, and i just forgot about it right now. Interesting thread overall, i hope some better suggestions pop up.
|
Noisrevbus
Caldari Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 23:39:00 -
[120]
Oh oh, before i forget (double post here, but i didn't want to add yet another argument to that already pretty long post, which already changes focus enough, already).
That is a common design issue with most of the Caldari ships. CCP seemingly took a decision sometime back that Caldari ships should be very specialized into certain roles, and that these nisches in turn should weigh up to a lower general performance (usually in example of not compensating for the drone bay in conventional slots, but rather in having strong nisches). That works where the nische is strong, such as in ECM-ships and doesn't work as well when the nische isn't very strong, such as in the Eagle's case.
"But it's the only Cruiser that can snipe up to BS range!". So? That is just words with very little practical application. I, at the very least, do not buy my ships based on them being Cruisers or Battleships. I don't sit down and think "I would like to fly a Cruiser". I buy a ship to fill a role, whatever the name of the hull type. I think "I would like to do 'this' right now, and i need a ship that can do it". The second another ship fill your nische role just as well (even almost as well), your ship suddenly become pretty unappealing, if it isn't interesting outside of it's nische.
Especially if we are talking tech two ships that don't even have cost to argue on their side. Then it's not only a Caldari design issue, but also a general Tech two design issue now in the wake of "overpowered speed HACs". "The only Cruiser that can snipe as a BS" would hold some merit if it didn't cost more than a BS (in cost-replacement spread), did similar damage or could fill as many flexible roles.
Anyway, im drifting off topic. My excuses! I just wanted to expand on that whole HAC drone bay comment, because i found it very interesting (even if i didn't agree with it).
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |